"Until the TIMES of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled.&qu

[Guest]

Oh thats ok with me if you choose that action. I am not going anywhere, this site needs the other side of the discussion.If someone by accident come to this site they are going to need to see that the preterist view has many many weaknesses both Scripturally and historically.Even now I am looking at the early Church fathers to see what they thought about the dates of Revelation. Seems it was even written till 90 something A.D which really shoots some holes in your idea that Revelation was fulfilled in 70 A.D.
I think if you impartially examine the internal evidence of Rev it does suggest it was written prior to Nero's death. That does'nt mean by itself that all of it is about 70AD or even that dispensationalism isn't true.

[_Sean]

Oh thats ok with me if you choose that action. I am not going anywhere, this site needs the other side of the discussion.If someone by accident come to this site they are going to need to see that the preterist view has many many weaknesses both Scripturally and historically.Even now I am looking at the early Church fathers to see what they thought about the dates of Revelation. Seems it was even written till 90 something A.D which really shoots some holes in your idea that Revelation was fulfilled in 70 A.D.


In His Service

Crusader

Why should we simply restate something that has already been said? If someone really wants to know, they should listen to a Dispensationalist to learn what they believe, and then listen to a partial-preterist to hear what they believe.

Instead, you go to a Dispensationalist to learn what a partial-preterist believes.

The reason I have responded to you so many times is for the very reason you state, that is, so others viewing this forum can see the points that both sides make.

While you have raised several points, I have answered them using as much biblical support as I had time for. Usually, in a forum debate, both sides discuss the points at hand. While I have taken the time to answer many of your questions, you have answered very few of mine. You assert that preterism is untrue but haven't proven it.

I think there would be many who read this that will be surprised at how little proof you have given for your side.

What I am getting at is this. You have asked yet another question. Yet you have not yet answered many questions I have had for you. Like, your view that the new Jerusalem is not the church. I have shown that it is, yet you just move on to another point. If you don't answer counter-points to issues that you brought up, then how is anyone who is reading this forum be convinced you are correct if you don't even answer these questions.

[Guest]

Sean wrote
"One other thing I forgot to mention that this reminded me of:

Rev 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Rev 21:9 Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, "Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb."

" Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem

So what is the holy city Jerusalem? What does the text say "it" is?
The Bride, the wife of the lamb. This is the Church:

2 Co 11:2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

The bride of Christ is the Church, the Bride is also the holy city Jerusalem.

Please explain how this is incorrect.

There are no two peoples of God, we are all one in Christ (Eph 2&3, Gal 3)."

Sean, first the New Jerusalem is explained clearly to us if you just would have read further,your pulling Scripture out of context. Then you are somehow implying that this does away with Israel or the promises that God has made to Israel. Revelation 21 clearly is talking about a new heaven and new earth.It also spends most of the chapter explaining this city. Yes the Bride of Christ will inhabit this city but we are not that city decribed here. ( Revelation 21 9-21) To imply that God would somehow spend all these verses describing a literal building and then say yeah but its really the Church is simply bad exegesis.

I expalined earlier in Jeremiah 31 29-31 that God willl in the last days make a NEW COVENANT with His poeple.
"The time is coming," declares the LORD,
       "when I will make a new covenant
       with the house of Israel
       and with the house of Judah.

 32 It will not be like the covenant
       I made with their forefathers
       when I took them by the hand
       to lead them out of Egypt,
       because they broke my covenant,
       though I was a husband to [d] them, [e] "
       declares the LORD.

 33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
       after that time," declares the LORD.
       "I will put my law in their minds
       and write it on their hearts.
       I will be their God,
       and they will be my people.

Paul in Romans 11 said that God has not abondoned Israel. He also stated that thier blindness would continue until the times of the gentiles is fulfilled. You are right about one thing...they will come through Jesus and when they do this new covenant will be fulfilled. So we absolutely are not the city in Rev 21. And as far as the Jews go, a remnant will be saved in the last days and realize Jesus is the Messiah. Read Ezekiel 37 which I posted earlier here,its also a prohpecy waiting to be fulfilled.Paul new this , He was the Hebrew of Hebrews...yet he met the Messiah on the road to Damascus. I know this is hard for you to understand in many ways because you have put all your hope in making 70 A.D. the end...when really God dispersed His people there and in these last days has called them back to the land He gave thier fathers to get them ready for the times of the gentiles to end,a time when God will once again deal with His people.

"I do not want you to be IGNORANT OF THIS MYSTERY,brothers,so that you may not be concieted:Israel has experienced a hardening in part UNTIL the full number of Gentiles has come in. Sean the key word you need to focus on is until.....After 69 weeks Daniels prophecy came to a screeching halt at the birth of the Church....and the 70th week will begin when....when the times of the gentiles ends and the Bride leaves....and why...because as it says in Daniel 9 these seventy weeks are for your people and your city and arent for the Church.....Maranatha....


Looking for the Blessed hope

Crusader

[Guest]

If the man of sin is the papacy and he sits himself in the temple of God wouldn't it be logical to have to believe that this temple he sits in is the Catholic Church in order to stay consistant within the passage of scripture that speaks concerning this?

Roger

[Guest]

At the time when the papacy was developing, there was no difference between the catholic Church and "the Church." "Catholic" simply means "universal."

The Roman Catholic Church did not arise as a resistance movement or an alternative to Christianity. There was only one church in the world from the time of Christ. In the centuries after the apostles died, the leadership of the church, and its doctrines simply drifted further and further into corruption, until what the church had become was unrecognizable from that which Christ had established. Part of that drift was the growing political power of the bishop of Rome over the churches throughout the empire. The bishop of Rome is what is called the Pope.

When the papacy arose in the church, there was not some separate "church" meeting somewhere which was not part of the catholic church (although the Eastern churches were geographically separate and followed their own doctrinal course in some particulars). If the church is what Paul referred to as "the temple of God" (which seems undebatable, given the way he always used that phrase in his writings elsewhere), then that "temple" was visible only in the Roman Catholic Church for many centuries. That is where the papacy arose, which eventually fulfilled every prediction concerning the man of sin.

[Guest]

That's exactly right Steve, and to unspiritualize the Temple as used by Paul, in order to fit some dispensational view, only lends to further supposition of who and what. If the RCC has become the apostate church, then the man of perdition would have to be a pope or the papcy in general - IMHO of course.

[_Sean]

Sean, first the New Jerusalem is explained clearly to us if you just would have read further,your pulling Scripture out of context.

You'll need to clarify. What do you mean?

Rev 21:9 Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, "Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb."
Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,
Rev 21:11 having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal.
Rev 21:12 It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed--
Rev 21:13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates.
Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

This mirrors what Paul said in Ephesians 2:

Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--
Eph 2:12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
Eph 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
Eph 2:16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
Eph 2:17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.
Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
Eph 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
Eph 2:21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.
Eph 2:22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

Eph 1:22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

The Church of Jesus Christ is Israel, comprised of not only Jews but also Gentiles. The building is the same one descrbed in Revelation 21. The passage is clear. Is God going to put the dividing wall back up?

Then you are somehow implying that this does away with Israel or the promises that God has made to Israel.

How so? I've not said anything of the sort.

If Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, then how has Isreal been done away with?

Eph 3:6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body

The thing about the Church that is a mystery is that Gentiles partake of Israel, being members of Israel. This is clearly stating that the Church isn't something different apart from true Israel.

Revelation 21 clearly is talking about a new heaven and new earth.It also spends most of the chapter explaining this city. Yes the Bride of Christ will inhabit this city but we are not that city decribed here. ( Revelation 21 9-21) To imply that God would somehow spend all these verses describing a literal building and then say yeah but its really the Church is simply bad exegesis.

But this is my point. We are talking past each other here. The church is a building, see Ephesians 2 above. When you say "To imply that God would somehow spend all these verses describing a literal building and then say yeah but its really the Church is simply bad exegesis." You show your lack of understanding of what the church is. The church is not something "other than" Israel, it is Israel! I have to keep restating this because you keep inferring that the church is some entity other than Israel. So when John sees the Bride, and the biride is called the new Jerusalem, you can't exegetically say it isn't the church. That's bad exegesis. Just read what it says. Does it mention two cities or one? Two peoples of God or one?

I expalined earlier in Jeremiah 31 29-31 that God willl in the last days make a NEW COVENANT with His poeple.
"The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to [d] them, [e] "
declares the LORD.

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

So you don't see this as the new covenant Jesus made with the 12 disciples? Maybe you should read Hebrews 8, It quotes this passage from Jeremiah and applies it to the covenant Jesus made and is mediator of. To say that the new covenant has not yet been established is astonishing. Where you are struggling is with the fact that it says "The house of Israel and Judah", but you also know this covenant was with the Church. Connect the dots, they are the same.

Paul in Romans 11 said that God has not abondoned Israel. He also stated that thier blindness would continue until the times of the gentiles is fulfilled. You are right about one thing...they will come through Jesus and when they do this new covenant will be fulfilled. So we absolutely are not the city in Rev 21. And as far as the Jews go, a remnant will be saved in the last days and realize Jesus is the Messiah. Read Ezekiel 37 which I posted earlier here,its also a prohpecy waiting to be fulfilled.Paul new this , He was the Hebrew of Hebrews...yet he met the Messiah on the road to Damascus. I know this is hard for you to understand in many ways because you have put all your hope in making 70 A.D. the end...when really God dispersed His people there and in these last days has called them back to the land He gave thier fathers to get them ready for the times of the gentiles to end,a time when God will once again deal with His people.

"I do not want you to be IGNORANT OF THIS MYSTERY,brothers,so that you may not be concieted:Israel has experienced a hardening in part UNTIL the full number of Gentiles has come in. Sean the key word you need to focus on is until.....After 69 weeks Daniels prophecy came to a screeching halt at the birth of the Church....and the 70th week will begin when....when the times of the gentiles ends and the Bride leaves....and why...because as it says in Daniel 9 these seventy weeks are for your people and your city and arent for the Church.....Maranatha....


Looking for the Blessed hope

Crusader

I'll post an answer to the rest of this when I get time.

[Guest]

Sean said.

[So you don't see this as the new covenant Jesus made with the 12 disciples? Maybe you should read Hebrews 8, It quotes this passage from Jeremiah and applies it to the covenant Jesus made and is mediator of. To say that the new covenant has not yet been established is astonishing. Where you are struggling is with the fact that it says "The house of Israel and Judah", but you also know this covenant was with the Church. Connect the dots, they are the same. ]


Sean there are no dots to connect. In Hebrews 8 among other things, God is contrasting the old covenant with the new covenant. I never said the new covenant hadnt been established, for in fact Jesus established the new covenant with His death,buriel and ressurection. I did say that in Jeremiah 31 God spoke of a future new covenant that He would make with Israel,that the writer of Hebrews would include it is awesome and it only fits in line with the Romans 11 among other passages speaking of God dealing with Israel. Many people make the same error you are making by confusing Israel and the Church. Jeremiah 31 can in no possible stretch of the imagination be referring to the Church.One, it says in Jeremiah 31 its about Israel and the writer of Hebrews clearly here is contrasting the two..old and new and both in reference to Israel.

Ezekiel 37 very expicitly indicates this same thing as you read in Hebrews...but it even gets little more difficult for preterists to explain.For after David had been dead for 400 years Ezekiel prophesied he would return and be a prince in Jerusalem....Its a very difficult passage to explain away or ignore....one you need to respond to.

"5Again a message came to me from the LORD: 16"Son of man, take a stick and carve on it these words: `This stick represents Judah and its allied tribes.' Then take another stick and carve these words on it: `This stick represents the northern tribes of Israel.'[a] 17Now hold them together in your hand as one stick. 18When your people ask you what your actions mean, 19say to them, `This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will take the northern tribes and join them to Judah. I will make them one stick in my hand.' 20Then hold out the sticks you have inscribed, so the people can see them. 21And give them this message from the Sovereign LORD: I will gather the people of Israel from among the nations. I will bring them home to their own land from the places where they have been scattered. 22I will unify them into one nation in the land. One king will rule them all; no longer will they be divided into two nations. 23They will stop polluting themselves with their detestable idols and other sins, for I will save them from their sinful backsliding. I will cleanse them. Then they will truly be my people, and I will be their God.

    24"My servant David will be their king, and they will have only one shepherd. They will obey my regulations and keep my laws. 25They will live in the land of Israel where their ancestors lived, the land I gave my servant Jacob. They and their children and their grandchildren after them will live there forever, generation after generation. And my servant David will be their prince forever. 26And I will make a covenant of peace with them, an everlasting covenant. I will give them their land and multiply them, and I will put my Temple among them forever. 27I will make my home among them. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 28And since my Temple will remain among them forever, the nations will know that I, the LORD, have set Israel apart for myself to be holy."


Jesus is Lord

Crusader

[_Sean]

Paul in Romans 11 said that God has not abondoned Israel. He also stated that thier blindness would continue until the times of the gentiles is fulfilled.

That's not what it says.

"Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved"

It says a partial hardening. That means, the Jews who reject Christ are blinded, those who believe are the remnant.

"What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened"

It says this state will continue until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. Paul then makes a comment about this very fact by saying "in this way all Israel will be saved"

In what way? The elect Jews (not those who are blinded) are fellow citizens with the elect Gentiles, these combined two are "All Israel being saved". Jew+Gentile=All Israel.

Paul is not speaking to what will happen after the fullness of the Gentiles. He is explaining what "All Israel" is.

You are right about one thing...they will come through Jesus and when they do this new covenant will be fulfilled. So we absolutely are not the city in Rev 21.

Then by your own admision, once they come to Jesus they become part of the Church. Once you believe you become part of Christ's body.

So we absolutely are not the city in Rev 21.

What? The city is called the bride, we are called the bride. Yet you deny this. Well, at least you are admiting it, the bride of the lamb in your opinion is not the church.

And as far as the Jews go, a remnant will be saved in the last days and realize Jesus is the Messiah. Read Ezekiel 37 which I posted earlier here,its also a prohpecy waiting to be fulfilled.Paul new this , He was the Hebrew of Hebrews...yet he met the Messiah on the road to Damascus. I know this is hard for you to understand in many ways because you have put all your hope in making 70 A.D. the end...when really God dispersed His people there and in these last days has called them back to the land He gave thier fathers to get them ready for the times of the gentiles to end,a time when God will once again deal with His people.

Like I said, Ezekiel was written during the Babylonian captivity, Ezekiel 37 I already commented on. Peter, referring to 2 Sam 7 mentioned that this would be fulfilled when David was dead. Buy taking this interpretation of Eze 37 (which you are entitled to do) you put other passages in contradiction to it. You have to reconcile all the passages.

"I do not want you to be IGNORANT OF THIS MYSTERY,brothers,so that you may not be concieted:Israel has experienced a hardening in part UNTIL the full number of Gentiles has come in. Sean the key word you need to focus on is until.....

I commented on this above and earlier in this thread.

After 69 weeks Daniels prophecy came to a screeching halt at the birth of the Church....and the 70th week will begin when....when the times of the gentiles ends and the Bride leaves....and why...because as it says in Daniel 9 these seventy weeks are for your people and your city and arent for the Church.....Maranatha....
Crusader

Where on earth do you get this idea? Not from the Bible but from you bible teachers.

Look, Jesus came and did what?

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Jesus purpose was to come and being the reign of the Messiah, His first order of business was to build the Church. You say Daniel was written about the Jews. You are correct. What was Peter? A Jew. Did Jesus start the Church? Yes Was it a Gentile Church?

Matthew 15:24
He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Jesus came to establish a Jewish Chruch. According to Daniel AFTER the 7+62 weeks, which means IN the 70th week. You can't be after the 69th week and not be in the 70th week. A gap is not there. Anyway, After the 69th week of Jesus ministry He was cut-off. For this time no Gentiles were given the Gospel until 3.5 years AFTER the death and resurrection, ending the 70th week and ending the exclusivity of the Church aka Kingdom of God being to the Jews only. At this point, Peter got his vision of Gentiles coming into the Church/Kingdom of God.

[_Sean]

Sean there are no dots to connect. In Hebrews 8 among other things, God is contrasting the old covenant with the new covenant. I never said the new covenant hadnt been established, for in fact Jesus established the new covenant with His death,buriel and ressurection. I did say that in Jeremiah 31 God spoke of a future new covenant that He would make with Israel,that the writer of Hebrews would include it is awesome and it only fits in line with the Romans 11 among other passages speaking of God dealing with Israel. Many people make the same error you are making by confusing Israel and the Church.

I don't understand what you are saying. You agree that Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31 and you agree that Jesus established the covenant spoken of in the text of Hebrews (which is the same as Jer 31) but then you say Jeremiah is about a future covenant? Make up your mind. Is it about the covenant Jesus established or not? Your not making sense.

Jeremiah 31 can in no possible stretch of the imagination be referring to the Church.One, it says in Jeremiah 31 its about Israel and the writer of Hebrews clearly here is contrasting the two..old and new and both in reference to Israel.

And as you keep ignoring, Paul said the "mystery" is that the Gentiles are fellow citizens with Israel. The Church is the Kingdom of God.

Jesus said to Peter "You are Peter, on this rock I will build my Church"
Later, Jesus instituted the new covenant to Peter and the other disciples:

Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

So the new covenant was instituted with who? The 12 apostles, the Church. Eph 2

Ezekiel 37 very expicitly indicates this same thing as you read in Hebrews...but it even gets little more difficult for preterists to explain.For after David had been dead for 400 years Ezekiel prophesied he would return and be a prince in Jerusalem....Its a very difficult passage to explain away or ignore....one you need to respond to.

"5Again a message came to me from the LORD: 16"Son of man, take a stick and carve on it these words: `This stick represents Judah and its allied tribes.' Then take another stick and carve these words on it: `This stick represents the northern tribes of Israel.'[a] 17Now hold them together in your hand as one stick. 18When your people ask you what your actions mean, 19say to them, `This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will take the northern tribes and join them to Judah. I will make them one stick in my hand.' 20Then hold out the sticks you have inscribed, so the people can see them. 21And give them this message from the Sovereign LORD: I will gather the people of Israel from among the nations. I will bring them home to their own land from the places where they have been scattered. 22I will unify them into one nation in the land. One king will rule them all; no longer will they be divided into two nations. 23They will stop polluting themselves with their detestable idols and other sins, for I will save them from their sinful backsliding. I will cleanse them. Then they will truly be my people, and I will be their God.

    24"My servant David will be their king, and they will have only one shepherd. They will obey my regulations and keep my laws. 25They will live in the land of Israel where their ancestors lived, the land I gave my servant Jacob. They and their children and their grandchildren after them will live there forever, generation after generation. And my servant David will be their prince forever. 26And I will make a covenant of peace with them, an everlasting covenant. I will give them their land and multiply them, and I will put my Temple among them forever. 27I will make my home among them. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 28And since my Temple will remain among them forever, the nations will know that I, the LORD, have set Israel apart for myself to be holy."


Jesus is Lord

Crusader

Like I said, you can interpret anyway you want, but the fact is, when you compare scripture with scripture, you will find that the apostles didn't agree with your interpretation. I already commented on this in a previous post. Peter disagrees in Acts 2.

One thing that really boggles my mind is that you can read a passage like this:

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

And think that there are two peoples of God. Can I ask you, what is "Israel"? What constitutes a Jew? Paul states that you must belong to Christ because He is the seed that the promises were given too. Once you belong to Him, you are part of His body, the Church.

The two have become one. Eph 2